And? Shrimpy McHaliburton shirked his National Guard duty. Why don't you mention that?

{crinkles tinfoil}

If such is the fact, is there any hope the MSM will back off their stance that the WMD did not exist? I don't hold out much hope but maybe some near east Blogger will break the story!!

Double hearsay from Newsmax? I might just keep my powder dry for now--pun intended.

As long as they continue to line up to join and take part in their own security the terrorists can't win. If we see a sharp decline in volunteers we are in trouble. The part about WMDs is nothing new, but it is good to hear it from such a high level source who had the guts to let his name be printed. Too bad you really don't hear much about it in the MSM, but then again it is not surprising considering their hatred of President Bush. It definitely supports the President's main reason for invading in the first place.

One could point out that terror attacks directed against Iraqis lining up for work as soldiers and policemen seem to belie the claims of a 'burgeoning' insurrection.

If the Iraqi population is so wholeheartedly opposed to the 'occupation', who is it in those lines? Jordanians?

No, it's clear that the terror attacks are meant to derail what is most certainly coming.... an Iraqi election which will establish a broad support for
changes effected in the wake of the removal of Saddam.

Above all, they must try to deny the US the credibility that will derive from elections.

I wonder if the recruiting of Iraqi's is going so well not because of a need for jobs, but because there is such a strong desire to stabilize the country. Could there be a groundswell among young mem similar to that which happened here after Pearl Harbor (my father enlisted in the Navy, the next day) and Sept. 11th?

That info on WMD certainly confirms a piece of common sense that no MSM or even politician (not even the Republicans, so far as I can see) has pointed out. By conservation of mass I *KNOW* that those WMD are somewhere, in some form. And until they're positively located, the most reasonable (from a precautionary standpoint) assumption is that they were smuggled out. Until/unless there's proof-positive that ALL the WMD that were known to be in the Iraqi arsenal circa-1998 (courtesy of the UN inspectors) were, in fact, destroyed, we can ONLY assume they were smuggled out. And act accordingly. Which is to say, if proven to be elsewhere, that elsewhere must be neutralized in whatever way possible.

- Eric.

WMD?
Okay. Try this:
Think Binary. Send one batch of benign stuff thataway; send the other batch of benign stuff t'otherway . . .
Poof. No WMD.

Bring the batches back together again in small, medium or large doses (depends upon the prescription) - Poof! WMD! All over again.

Or, perhaps: Where did Saddam send his Air Force for protection during the Gulf War?

Or, where DID all those chemicals come from that were captured a short while ago in Lebanon?

I know. Let's ask Clinton where they are. His was the last administration that was absolutely, positively, certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was brewing up more batches of the goodies.

Or, maybe Kofi . . . or, maybe . . . Jaques, or . . . oh well, NEVERMIND.

8031 How can this all be as nice? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com